Manikandan vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By In

Court
Madras High Court

CRL RC(MD) No. 859 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On: 08.10.2026
Delivered On: 30.10.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.MURUGESAN
CRL RC(MD) No. 859 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD010681132026}
1.Manikandan
2.Subburaj ..Petitioners
Vs
State Of Tamilnadu Rep By
Inspector Of Police,
Tirunelveli Junction Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
(Crime No. 1131/2020) ..Respondent
PRAYER: C-45 R. To call for the records pertaining to the order passed
by the Learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in
Crl.A.No.15/2025 dated 09.04.2026 dismissing the appeal for default
filed against the Judgment in SC No.509/2021 passed by the learned
Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli dated 01.03.2025 and
set aside the same.
For Petitioners :M/s.Vanisha
For Respondent : Mrs.V.Moushica,
Counsel for State of TN(Crl.side)
__________
Page 1  /  12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 11:23:05 am )

CRL RC(MD) No. 859 of 2026
ORDER
Challenging the judgment dated 09.04.2026 of the I Additional
District and Sessions Judge, hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellate
court’, in the criminal appeal in CA No.15/2025, the revision
petitioners/A2 and A3 have filed this Criminal Revision Petition under
S.438 BNSS.
02. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred
hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking in this
criminal revision, 'the revision petitioners' and 'the revision
respondent', unless the context otherwise requires.
03. Prefatory facts are that the revision petitioners and A1 were
convicted by the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Thirunelveli,
hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’, in SC No.509/2025 for the
offences punishable under S.307 IPC, that challenging such conviction
and the sentence of 5 years RI with a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, the
sentence of 1 year RI, the revision petitioners and A1 had filed a
criminal appeal in CA No.15/2025 on the file of the appellate court and
__________
Page 2  /  12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 11:23:05 am )

CRL RC(MD) No. 859 of 2026
that the appellate court having held that the prosecution has not proved
the offence under S.307 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt has
dismissed the criminal appeal as against the revision petitioners for non
prosecution but allowed the criminal appeal in favour of A1.
04. Challenging such dismissal of the criminal appeal as against
the revision petitioners for non prosecution, the revision petitioners
have filed this criminal revision.
05. Heard both sides, and perused all the materials available.
06. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that
a criminal appeal cannot be dismissed for non prosecution, that the
appellate court should have appointed either a legal aid counsel or an
amicus curie and decided the case accordingly, that the appellate court
should not have dismissed the criminal appeal as against the revision
petitioners in one line order, that therefore, the dismissal of the
criminal appeal as against the revision petitioners is not legal and that
therefore, this criminal revision may be allowed with suitable orders.
07. Learned Counsel for State of TN(Crl.side) would fairly
__________
Page 3  /  12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 11:23:05 am )

CRL RC(MD) No. 859 of 2026
concede that a criminal appeal cannot be dismissed for non prosecution
and that therefore, a considered order may be passed.
08. Short question is whether a criminal appeal can be dismissed
for non prosecution?
09. On perusal of the judgment which is under challenge, this
court finds that
nd rd
(a) the appellate court has noted in the preamble that ‘2 and 3
Appellants called absent, and no representation, and the appeal against
nd rd
the 2 and 3 appellants is dismissed’ (extracted as such) and
(b) the appellate court has held in the operative part of the
nd
judgment that ‘(iii) the criminal appeal is dismissed against the 2 and
rd
3 accused by way of non prosecution (extracted as such).
10. At this juncture, this court would like to refer to the decision
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bani Singh and Others V State of
UP (1996 SCC (4) 720) where it has been held as under:
‘….. The plain language of Section 385 makes it
clear that if the Appellate Court does not consider the
appeal fit for summary dismissal, it 'must' call for the
__________
Page 4  /  12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 11:23:05 am )

CRL RC(MD) No. 859 of 2026
record and Section 386 mandates that after the record is
received, the Appellate Court may dispose of the appeal
after hearing the accused or his counsel. Therefore, the
plain language of Sections 385-386 does not contemplate
dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution simpliciter. On
the contrary, the Code envisages disposal of the appeal on
merits after perusal and scrutiny of the record. The law
clearly expects the Appellate Court to dispose of the
appeal on merits, not merely by perusing the reasoning of
the trial court in the judgment, but by cross-checking the
reasoning with the evidence on record with a view to
satisfying itself that the reasoning and findings recorded
by the trial court are consistent with the material on
record. The law, therefore, does not envisage the dismissal
of the appeal for default or non-prosecution but only
contemplates disposal on merits after perusal of the
record.’
11. In Madan Lal Kapoor V Rajiv Thapar and Others (2007)
3 SCC (Cri) 437) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:
‘ 4 . The matter relates to administration of criminal
justice. As held by this Court, a criminal matter cannot be
dismissed for default and it must be decided on merits.
12. K.S.Panduranga V State Of Karnataka (2013 (3) SCC
721) is also a case where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as
__________
Page 5  /  12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 11:23:05 am )

CRL RC(MD) No. 859 of 2026
under:
‘22 . From the aforesaid decision, the principles that
can be culled out are (i) that the High Court cannot dismiss
an appeal for non- prosecution simpliciter without
examining the merits; (ii) that the court is not bound to
adjourn the matter if both the appellant or his
counsel/lawyer are absent; (iii) that the court may, as a
matter of prudence or indulgence, adjourn the matter but it
is not bound to do so; (iv) that it can dispose of the appeal
after perusing the record and judgment of the trial court;
(v) that if the accused is in jail and cannot, on his own,
come to court, it would be advisable to adjourn the case
and fix another date to facilitate the appearance of the
accused-appellant if his lawyer is not present, and if the
lawyer is absent and the court deems it appropriate to
appoint a lawyer at the State expense to assist it, nothing
in law would preclude the court from doing so; and (vi)
that if the case is decided on merits in the absence of the
appellant, the higher court can remedy the situation.’
13. Therefore, having regard to the aforesaid decisions, this court
holds that a criminal appeal cannot be dismissed for non prosecution.
14. What stirs the mind of this court are the findings of the
appellate court in its judgment. Relevant excerpts thereof would read
as under (extracted as such):
__________
Page 6  /  12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 11:23:05 am )

CRL RC(MD) No. 859 of 2026
‘10.Point for consideration:
1. Whether the accused committed the offence under
section.307 of the IPC beyond a reasonable doubt?
2. Whether the judgment of conviction recorded by the
learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Thirunelveli,
in S.C No.509/2021 dated. 01.03.2025 is perverse,
warranting interference by this court as an appellate
court?’

‘11.18. As discussed above, the oral and
documentary evidence, the prosecution has not proved the
offence under section.307 of the IPC beyond a reasonable
doubt against the accused. Accordingly, point No.1 is
decided.’
‘12. Answer to point No.2:
(i) As discussed in point No.1, this appellate court
has found the 1 to 3 accused not committed the offence
under section.307 of the IPC and the prosecution has not
proved the offence beyond the reasonable doubt.
(ii) Further, the trial court also convicted the
accused for the offence under Section.307 of the IPC
without appreciating the contradiction and uncorroborated
evidence of the prosecution witnesses. So, this appellate
court would like to interfere with the findings and
conviction of the trial court. Accordingly, point no.2 is
decided.’
__________
Page 7  /  12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 11:23:05 am )

CRL RC(MD) No. 859 of 2026
‘13. In the result,
(i) This criminal appeal is allowed, and the
st
sentence imposed against the 1 accused by the learned
Additional Assistant Judge, Thirunelveli, in S.C.
No.509/2021 on 01.03.2025 is hereby set aside, and the
Appellant is acquitted from the case and set at free and
fine amount if any paid by him shall be refunded to him.
(ii) The bail Bond if any, executed by the
Appellant, is hereby terminated.
(iii) The criminal appeal is dismissed against the
nd rd
2 and 3 accused by the way of non-prosecution.’
15. It is therefore clear that the appellate court, having held in
Point No.1 that the prosecution has not proved the charge under S.307
IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and in point No. 2 that all the three
accused have not committed the offence punishable under S.307 IPC
and the prosecution has not proved the charge under S.307 IPC beyond
all reasonable doubt, has simply dismissed the criminal appeal as
against the revision petitioners/A2 and A3 for non prosecution but
allowed the criminal appeal in favour of A1 acquitting him of the
charge under S.307 IPC.
__________
Page 8  /  12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 11:23:05 am )

CRL RC(MD) No. 859 of 2026
16. Ergo, having regard to the findings of appellate court that the
prosecution has not proved the charge under S.307 IPC beyond all
reasonable doubt and that all the three accused have not committed the
offence punishable under S.307 IPC, this court holds that the dismissal
of the criminal appeal as against the revision petitioners for non
prosecution is erroneous and perverse and that therefore, the revision
petitioners are entitled to get an order, allowing this criminal revision
and setting aside the dismissal of the criminal appeal as against the
revision petitioners for non prosecution in such terms as detailed
hereunder.
17. In fine, this criminal revision petition is hereby allowed,
(a) setting aside the dismissal of the criminal appeal in CA
nd rd
No.15/2025 as against the revision petitioners/2 and 3 appellants/A2
and A3 for non prosecution,
nd rd
(b) acquitting the revision petitioners/2 and 3 appellants/A2
and A3 of the charge under S.307 IPC ,
nd rd
(c) setting the revision petitioners/2 and 3 appellants/A2 and
A3 at liberty,
(d) directing the refund of the fine amount, if paid, to the
nd rd
revision petitioners/2 and 3 appellants/A2 and A3, and
__________
Page 9  /  12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 11:23:05 am )

CRL RC(MD) No. 859 of 2026
(e) cancelling the bail bond executed by the revision
nd rd
petitioners/2 and 3 appellants/A2 and A3.
30-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
gns
__________
Page 10  /  12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 11:23:05 am )

CRL RC(MD) No. 859 of 2026
To
1.The1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli
2.The Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli
3.The Inspector Of Police,
Tirunelveli Junction Police Station
Tirunelveli District
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Madurai
__________
Page 11  /  12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 11:23:05 am )

CRL RC(MD) No. 859 of 2026
B.MURUGESAN, J.
gns
Order made in
CRL RC(MD)No.859 of 2026
30-10-2026
__________
Page 12  /  12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 11:23:05 am )